Update no.831

Update from the Sunland

No.831

27.11.17 – 3.12.17

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- Former National Security Advisor and former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lieutenant General Michael Thomas ‘Mike’ Flynn, USA (Ret.) [792, 828] pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI.  The criminal guilty pleas are inching closer and closer to The Donald.  Flynn is reportedly cooperating with the special counsel investigation and fingered omnipotent son-in-law Jared Kushner as the “very senior member” of the administration who directed his outreach to the Russians.  Of course, the President throws Flynn under the bus, and declares he is “very happy” with the Flynn guilty plea and effusively gushes, “There's been absolutely no collusion.”  I did not count his collusion denials, but I suspect there were nearly a dozen in his impromptu public statement.  The more the President publicly proclaims “no collusion” the guiltier he sounds.

            Well, can I hear a hallelujah?  Christmas is almost here for corporations and the wealthy.  Last month, the House of Representatives passed HR.1—Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [829].  Early Saturday morning (01:36 [R] EST), the Senate passed its version of HR.1, moving the tax cut legislation one notch closer to passage.  The bill now goes to a joint conference committee to reconcile the differences between the two versions before the final bill goes back to the House and Senate for approval.  I did not have the capacity to carefully read through the text of either version.  If the PPACA individual mandate repeal is included in either version, it is well disguised.  I remain deeply troubled by the potential US$1.5T increase in the national debt over ten years.  This legislation is wishful thinking to say the least, as it is directly and strictly dependent upon the projected increase in tax revenue from economic growth and corporate reinvestment.  I am with Senator Corker of Tennessee on this one; a deficit neutral bill would have been more palatable.

            A friend and frequent contributor sent along an intriguing opinion article.

“Seven Crucial Truths About North Korea”

The Interpreter by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub

New York Times

Published: Wednesday, November 29, 2017

[only accessible via subscription]

NOTE: inclusion of the article is not practical in this forum.  The seven “basic truths” offered in the Fisher/Taub article will have to suffice for non-subscribers to the New York Times.

(1) It’s over. We failed. North Korea is a nuclear power now.

(2) North Korea can strike Washington and New York now.

(3) North Korea is rational, which means it won’t start a war.

(4) China isn’t going to solve the North Korea problem for us.

(5) North Korea can probably endure almost any level of economic punishment.

(6) North Korea’s goal isn’t war, but it’s still scary.

(7) Worry, but don’t burst a blood vessel.

 . . . to which I offered my opinion:

Calvin,

            An interesting and stimulating opinion from Fisher & Taub.  Thank you for sending it along.  I largely agree with their observations and assessment.  However, the most disturbing element to me is, what is not stated in their opinion—what does the DPRK do with the technology, e.g., sell/give it to ISIL or some other terrorist organization.  The other nuclear states (with the possible exception of Pakistan) have a vested interest in not supplying nuclear technology, devices or material to terrorist organizations, i.e., they are just as likely to be the target.  The DPRK is the farthest from that category.  I do agree with Fisher/Taub in that Kim and the DPRK leadership do not seek national suicide, and I think they know quite well that is exactly what would happen if a DPRK missile/nuclear warhead killed a million innocent people in New York City or some other metropolitan population center.  Terrorist organizations are far less tangible and thus more likely to use such devices for their political purposes from their perceived anonymity.  That is the wild card in this DPRK issue.

            I am proud and honored to publicly laud President Trump’s donation of his third quarter governmental compensation to the Health and Human Services opioid crisis intervention program.  Despite our views about him as a man or his performance as President, he deserves recognition and praise for his generous donation to an important program.  He is a fortunate man to have sufficient resources that enable him to be generous and independent of his governmental salary.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.830:

“Regarding the current popular news subject, I am amused at the paucity of commentary bearing on the obvious cause of the apparent or at least reported increase in male misbehavior toward females in this country since WWII (and perhaps since the days of President Wilson and early national fiscal irresponsibility).  Women have always tried to attract men, and vice versa, as a matter of human nature, and this must not change if our species is to survive.  The problem in this country is unrestrained marketing and commercialization of sexual attraction and the accompanying pornification of all forms of entertainment, readily and increasingly supported by the majority of our citizens.  This is truly a bi-partisan development, although arguably encouraged by the left in keeping with its demeaning of personal accountability and its championing of victimhood.  What will it take to convince us overfed Americans that this particular legacy of the sixties or earlier is a fatal acceleration of a national disease curable only by religious reformation?  Meanwhile, we continue to permit ourselves to be governed by those who habitually and sincerely address all problems with borrowed money with no intention of ever paying the principal, another fatal disease process curable only with bravery not found without divine intervention.  Pray to your higher power for wisdom and strength and, yes, repentance.”

My response:

            Oh my, this opens a ‘uge topic for discussion & examination.

            To begin, let us agree on a definition for morality.  I would suggest that morality is the belief system that governs a person’s actions when no one is looking.

            Male misbehavior toward females can be documented far earlier than the Wilson administration and is certainly not confined to this Grand Republic.  Mistreatment of females remained largely beyond public scrutiny for a variety of reasons until the temperance movement and women’s suffrage became public domain activities—both stemmed from the treatment of wives as property (Doctrine of Coverture) and women in general as non-citizens (i.e., without a voice or standing).  When women entered the public domain, we became more aware of abuses and I will argue that abuses were present for centuries, but largely unseen.

            I also believe there is little debate that religion played a pivotal, if not essential, role in the civilization of mankind.  Religion has also been instrumental in the advancement of art, architecture, music, and eventually writing, i.e., the cultural expression of human beings.  Yet, religion has also been a source of so much destruction and death.

            I am not sure what you mean by “curable only by religious reformation”?  What exactly is your thinking with this statement?  While religion has dabbled in politics to widely varying degrees over the centuries, I shall respectfully state that theocracy is just another form of dictatorship and potentially more oppressive by human beings invoking the authority of God to justify their dicta.  Further, I will argue that religion in all forms belongs in the spiritual domain, not the political arena.

            Lastly, as I have written, proper treatment of all citizens including women depends upon one simple principle—respect for others.  That principle does not depend upon religion, although religion can contribute to that state.  As long as one person does not respect another person, regardless of the social factors, then we will need laws and suffer the transgressions of weak men who find strength in oppressing or abusing others.

 . . . a follow-up comment:

“It appears that we have no disagreement.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            It is nice that we agree, but as an assurance, it is perfectly acceptable and understandable that we disagree from time to time.  A viable democracy depends upon vigorous public debate.

            I meant to add in my last reply . . . re: “Women have always tried to attract men,” is NEVER an excuse for bad behavior.  It does not matter that some woman or man parades around naked.  A person’s sexual attractiveness does not justify bad conduct to the seductive person or any other associate.  Every human being has a fundamental right to privacy and respect for the dignity of their body.  The Weinstein, Spacey, Trump, Moore et al abusers did not respect that fundamental right for individuals they deemed of lesser station.  IMHO, the sooner we let go of our affinity for Victorian morality the sooner we will achieve a more enlightened state.

Comment to the Blog:

“Here's a WHO study of mental health issues in various nations: https://scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0042-96862000000400003&lng=&nrm=iso.

The most notable point, to me, in the abstract is that the U.S. is on a level similar to the Netherlands in prevalence of mental health issues. Homicide rates (given here https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5 from Worldbank) are far lower in the Netherlands. You may dismiss any or all studies, and that would make you ordinary.  I prefer to rely on the best sources of evidence that I can find.”

My reply to the Blog:

            Thank you for your continuing Herculean efforts to educate me.

            Please, I am NOT dismissing any or all studies.  I am only trying to place studies like these in perspective and the broader context.  I prefer and choose to rely on the best sources available for facts to inform me on any particular topic.

            That said, I must return to the observation of the disproportionately high contributing factors of mental illness among the perpetrators of mass murder events.  Why is that?  Do firearms contribute to the mental illness of these perpetrators?  If so, how?

            Just a few thoughts . . .

 . . . Round two:

“Please give sources for that. The correlation I have seen is to domestic violence by the shooters. That is not categorized as mental illness, although doing so would make sense to me.”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            I would love to take the time to go back to every mass murder event in my lifetime to document the mental health contributing factors.  I just do not have that kind of time and I have too many other higher priority, on-going projects.  Let it suffice to say, it is simply and solely my observation and opinion, so you can discount or dismiss my opinion as you wish.

            Yes, I agree.  Domestic violence by itself is not classified as a mental illness.  Yet, domestic violence often appears to be a common thread instigated by underlying mental health issues, e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Dennis Rader, Charles Manson, Adam Lanza, et al.  Domestic violence, and all too often abuse of animals, should be clear societal markers for many community restrictions, e.g., firearm, or even any weapon, access/ownership; travel; et cetera; at a minimum, such events should be recorded in a larger national database like the No-Fly list with a process for appeal and adjudication, along with at least some form of public access like the sexual predator’s listing.

 . . . Round three:

“Nobody asked you to do original research.  There's no call to re-invent the wheel every time we have a question.  I don't do that either.  I find reliable resources and rely on them.  I verify that they use appropriate methods and I check on who pays them.  That's not asking nearly as much as doing one's own research, but it gives me and others credibility that's often lacking in public discourse.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            Well, thank you for that.  I do not feel like I am suggesting that we reinvent the wheel . . . only refine our examination parameters.  The simple equating that availability of firearms with mass murder events is far too simplistic.  Further, mental illness does not equate to mass murder potential either, i.e., all those with bona fide mental illness are not possible mass murders.  I offered the simple, and I believe readily apparent, fact is the mass murderers we know about have consistently exhibited mental illness, anti-social behavior, and often tendencies toward violence.  Intervention by family members, schools, colleagues, and the communities they live in would help to at least identify those with the potential for violence.  When I do a basic search, there is no question the mass preponderance of public information attempts to debunk the involvement of mental illness.  A quick scan of just the first page of search results yields consistent rejection of mental health contribution.  So, for the sake of argument, let us assume the mental health of the perpetrators has absolutely nothing to do with an individual’s penchant for mass murder.  Shouldn’t a representative fraction of the perpetrators exhibit normal, social behavior?  Have any of the mass murderers we know of exhibited “normal” behavior?  There is(are) reason(s) that an individual turns to mass murder to act out or express himself.  I am searching for those causal factors.  Yes, availability of firearms is a clear relevant factor—no debate.  What I find objectionable in this debate is the sole focus on gun control; availability is NOT the sole, central or even dominant causal factor.  I own and have access to more than a few firearms, and I have never hurt anyone; I have not even felt the urge to do such a thing.  So, what is it that separates me from Stephen Craig Paddock or Devin Patrick Kelley?  This issue is NOT and cannot be a matter of the tool(s) of choice; that is far too simplistic.  I am concerned with our desire for a knee-jerk reaction to treat the symptoms rather than searching for the root cause(s) and treating those root causal factors.

 . . . Round four:

“I appreciate your search, but then you overrule the information you find without discussing its sources or reliability.

“This argument approaches the heart of my search for the basic difference in outlook that transcends the ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ labels.  We ask why people do things, and your answer is rooted in your assessment of their individual minds.  I ask first how these events happen, and my answer is open to societal, as well as individual, factors.  People in other nations commit mass attacks, but not as often or as successfully.  There have been well-reported attacks in Scandinavia and in China involving men with knives.  They injured dozens of people and killed one or two apiece.  Knives are easily available, but require much more skill and strength to use for homicide.  Others have begun to use vehicles for similar atrocities, but vehicles are harder to acquire, especially outside countries with high car ownership.  So, homicidal people, even those attempting mass homicide, exist worldwide.  We should certainly address their existence and conditions, but even with political goodwill, that would take a very long time.  To reduce the deaths and injuries in the meantime, we need to address the one outstanding difference between the U.S.A., with our much higher homicide rate, and most of the rest of the world.  That difference is the easy availability of firearms.  If you can find something else bearing on this issue, please enlighten me.”

 . . . my reply to round four:

            With respect, I think you may have read far too much into my words.  I was not and do not overrule the not-quite-all-of-the-page of search result articles and opinions.  I was simply reflecting the paucity of enquiry regarding the obvious mental health indicators in these events.  I appreciate that a substantial chunk of our citizenry wants to focus on gun control and more specifically the number of firearms in our society outside law enforcement and the military.  It is one thing to offer a Herculean effort to redirect the public intercourse, but ignoring the involvement of significant mental illness or serious anti-social behavior is a serious flaw in the arguments presented.  Adam Lanza had significant and demonstrable mental health and anti-social problems, so much so his own mother attempted numerous times to seek state intervention without a scintilla of success.  Devin Kelley demonstrated a substantial history of anti-social conduct, so much so even the government had direct knowledge, and yet the systems intended to protect us from such characters failed.  Those facts have absolutely nothing to do with an inanimate tool they chose to carry out their crazed actions.

            Yes, my enquiry seeks the root cause(s) of bad or injurious events.  It is my nature.  I have lived all my life with such enquiry.  All investigators (doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, law enforcement, et al) are taught (not all practice) to seek the root causes rather than treat or respond to the presented symptoms.  Putting a Band-aid on an infected wound may stop the bleeding but will not heal the injury.

            I understand and appreciate your path of enquiry.  For the record, I am not arguing with your approach.  However, simply focusing on the availability of firearms, or starting with the availability of firearms, ignores the body of history in the genesis of this Grand Republic.  Further, the availability is not discriminant, i.e., you might affect Stephen Paddock, but you will also affect me—a law-abiding, peaceful, respectful, private citizen.  That said, let us focus our outrage on the failure of the State to enforce existing laws and how to refine our laws to affect availability of firearms to those citizens who exhibit behavior inconsistent with the safe operation of firearms.  As long as a large body of citizens seek to treat the symptoms only (reduction of firearms in the hands of private citizens), I will be counted among the resistance.

 . . . Round five:

“I will not quarrel with the rest of your points, but your search for ‘root causes’ will eventually lead you back to evolution or Adam, whichever you prefer.  It won't address the issue at hand.”

 . . . my reply to round five:

            You may well be correct.  So be it.  This would not be the first time I have been compared to Don Quixote de la Mancha.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)